New Rules from FDA

If it's on your mind and it has to do with multiple sclerosis in any way, post it here.

New Rules from FDA

Postby HarryZ » Sat Mar 24, 2007 7:17 am

This could certainly have an effect on how big pharma conducts its business in the future.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/washi ... 0&emc=eta1

Harry
User avatar
HarryZ
Family Elder
 
Posts: 2557
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: London, ON, Canada

Postby marcstck » Sat Mar 24, 2007 9:58 am

Well, that's a start. I've often wondered why payola is illegal in the music industry, but is considered business as usual within the medical establishment. The fact that doctors wind up on the payroll of the pharmaceutical companies whose drugs they hawk is scandalous...
User avatar
marcstck
Family Elder
 
Posts: 560
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 4:00 pm

FDA Etc

Postby Nemotoday » Sat Mar 24, 2007 10:59 am

Long, long overdue and I hope that Europe follow suit as well. :D
User avatar
Nemotoday
Family Member
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 3:00 pm

Postby Lyon » Sat Mar 24, 2007 11:40 am

I wish I knew more about the whole process because on one hand I think allowing any loopholes and allowing researchers even the $50,000 is too lax.

On the other hand, I don't want to risk hindering new treatment availability or increase the time before they become available.

Bob
Lyon
Family Elder
 
Posts: 6063
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:00 pm

Postby dignan » Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:46 pm

My part-time job as devil's advocate impels me to post a link making a case for the other side of the argument. I'm not sure where I stand, but I don't really think it's all that simple once I read both sides...


http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/20 ... o_play.php
User avatar
dignan
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1608
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 3:00 pm

Postby Lyon » Sat Mar 24, 2007 6:50 pm

dignan wrote:My part-time job as devil's advocate impels me to post a link making a case for the other side of the argument. I'm not sure where I stand, but I don't really think it's all that simple once I read both sides...
Thanks dignan, sounds like we're going to have plenty of time to form an opinion!
Bob
Lyon
Family Elder
 
Posts: 6063
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:00 pm

Postby HarryZ » Sun Mar 25, 2007 6:27 am

dignan wrote:My part-time job as devil's advocate impels me to post a link making a case for the other side of the argument. I'm not sure where I stand, but I don't really think it's all that simple once I read both sides...


Big pharma has survived and become very large, rich and influential over the years regardless of what rules they are given by the FDA or other government regulators. If they aren't allowed to give someone more than $ 50,000 to "preach" how wonderful a new drug is, they will find a way to get around that and insure their spokesperson is compensated.

Big money has always managed to overcome rules and when you look at the possible revenue that a drug company has in its sights with a new medication, you can bet the right thing is said by the right person and the right time.

These new rules proposed for the FDA will make it a bit more difficult for big pharma but I'm sure they are already thinking of ways to circumvent them.

Harry
User avatar
HarryZ
Family Elder
 
Posts: 2557
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: London, ON, Canada


Return to General Discussion

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


Contact us | Terms of Service